Re: the gap regarding Archived-At

[Graham Klyne <GK-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 14:27 30/10/04 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > Yes. One issue is that if there are a lot of comments fields,
> > the user will have difficulties to choose the right one.
>
> The same could be said of archived-at and x-archived-at.

I gave some further thought to the issue of Achived-At vs a general comment 
field and, based on my experience, come to the view:

- [X-]Archived-At as currently used does not specifically need to be a 
structured field in the RFC822 sense, but

- it is useful to use a separate header field name because this can be used 
by an MUA as a basis for determining whether or not to display the field 
value.  My MUA, which certainly has no knowledge of this specific header 
field, still allows me to do this much.  Using a generic comment field 
would obviate this benefit.

In saying this, I don't deny Keith's point about MUAs also being able to 
use the field -- I'm just responding further the earlier question about 
utility of the field as currently proposed.

#g
--

BTW, Bruce, your use of reply-to header fields is confusing me -- you 
nearly didn't get a directly addressed copy of this message.  Did you 
really mean this?:
[[
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Martin Dürst <duerst@xxxxxx>,
   ietf-822 <ietf-822@xxxxxxx>
]]



------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact